Is a Theocracy Inherently Evil

WinBySurrender said:

Like which ones, for instance?

Click to expand...

Any form of Conservative/Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christianity.

WinBySurrender said:

Like which ones, for instance?

Click to expand...

Jase said:

Any form of Conservative/Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christianity.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Like Westboro Baptist Church, or similar.

The problem with theocracies, is that people run them in the name of a god. This does not require the person/persons to be a good religious person. It gives the leader authority to make laws, "for" the deity. This where I believe theocracies fail. What we see with the theocracy in Israel, is that it was originally run by God himself. However, the Israelites wanted an earthly king. Things often went badly after they got their earthly king.

Jase said:

Any form of Conservative/Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christianity.

Click to expand...

Bourne said:

Indeed. Like Westboro Baptist Church, or similar.

Click to expand...

So you two believe that Westboro is a typical "conservative/fundamentalist/evangelical" (evangelical? REALLY??) church?

In that case, I'm afraid you don't know much about the subject.

JediMobius said:

So, I don't see what's so dangerous about Iran's nuclear program, I don't see them committing nuclear suicide, if they get the bomb, by launching.

More to the point, though, what does it matter the name or style of government? It is the concentration of power which leads to tyranny, and even our democratic republic is susceptible to this. Certainly, a theocracy is more prone to the concentration of power into the hands of a few than other types of government, but the difference in oppression would not necessarily be of degree, but type. No matter what particular group gains power in a given country, each will have its own set of biases. Depending what protections are already in place, oppression may be staved-off, but it's only a matter of time if the regime stays in control. Which groups are the target of this oppression is the only indicator of how many will be oppressed under a tyrannical government of any type.

Is a theocracy inherently evil? Only in the sense that the individuals who perpetrate tyranny are evil.

Click to expand...

I think you are probably right about Iran. They desire to become a regional political power. They talk about destruction of Israel, but they would not do it with a first strike. They want bragging rights that come with a bomb. Of course, once you have a bomb there is always the temptation to use it.

Additionally, they actually do need the energy. I am sure they are pursuing a nuclear bomb, but they are also experiencing an energy deficit and could really use a few reactors for electricity.

I agree totally that the key is the concentration of power. In the U.S. we have very diversified power groups. The big reason is because we have very diversified economic sources of power. We are also diversified by our style of government, of course.

In Iran they have oil. That is it. Whoever controls the oil controls everything. The economic power is centralized. And, additionally, the government is centralized.

Generally, most people who run for government want power. What we see in Iran, and other theocratic governments, and during the Crusades, are power brokers talking in a religious language but acting in a political manner.

Theocrats do not worship God, they worship themselves. They use theocratic language to motivate their citizens, justify their behavior and achieve their goals.

If Jesus was actually running things, that would be different. If men and women are running things, it is always going to be flawed, no matter what style of government. I also agree that a diversified government treats the general population better than centralized government.

Jase said:

They are a combination of both if taken literally. But I don't think God actually condoned the atrocities found in the OT, I think the Israelites merely used him as justification for their evil actions the same way the Crusaders and Witch Burners did.

Click to expand...

I understand. But how did you come to the conclusion that that Israelites were really doing what they wanted to do and using God as an excuse rather then actually doing the will of God?

God's Fighter said:

I see that we're getting off topic again.

Click to expand...

Sorry brother if you think this is off-topic, but I think it's absolutely related to your question. After all, if brother Jase's reasons for thinking that those parts of Scripture are false, then I have to ask if it's because he's assuming beforehand that all theocracies are evil and then bending Scripture to confrom to his presupposition about theocracies. In other words, before we can determine if all theocracies are evil, we must first establish how we know good and evil to begin with. Is it based on personal opinion? Collective opinion? Or a transcendental source? This is the essence of my questions and as I hope you can see, it's directly related to one being able to determine your original question.

WinBySurrender said:

That's the first problem

Click to expand...

False. Wikipedia has been demonstrated to be as reliable as encyclopaedia britannica for scientific articles. Other studies have also been done, and it seems wikipedia articles require no more skepticism than with any other source.

A 2006 review[43] of Wikipedia by Library Journal, using a panel of librarians, "the toughest critics of reference materials, whatever their format", asked "long standing reviewers" to evaluate three areas of Wikipedia (popular culture, current affairs, and science), and concluded: "While there are still reasons to proceed with caution when using a resource that takes pride in limited professional management, many encouraging signs suggest that (at least for now) Wikipedia may be granted the librarian's seal of approval". A reviewer who "decided to explore controversial historical and current events, hoping to find glaring abuses" concluded "I was pleased by Wikipedia's objective presentation of controversial subjects" but that "as with much information floating around in cyberspace, a healthy degree of skepticism and skill at winnowing fact from opinion are required." Other reviewers noted that there is "much variation" but "good content abounds."

...And that's the second one: You believed him.

Click to expand...

Forgive me for extending "innocent until proven guilty" to all of humanity.

You're dealing not with a theocracy in Iran but a lunatic fringe who believe that martyrdom is the greatest way a man or a nation could express faith. There are those in Iran -- not all of them, but enough in positions of power that it's exceptionally scary -- who wouldn't worry about the resulting annihilation of Iran, so long as the "little Satan" Israel is destroyed. There would be very little in the way of moral fiber or reasoned intellect that would keep someone in Iran from pushing the little red "Launch" button.If you are saying our government is tyrannical, I vehemently disagree. If you're saying it could become tyrannical, I says "That's what the checks and balances are for." That would be an autocracy. A theocracy could conceivably be a democracy with the caveat that the government considered itself divinely guided. Not sure that would be workable since I'm pretty sure there would be at least as many opinions about "what God really said" as there were people in the government. Making the assumption that a theocracy would equate with tyranny may be a logical leap to a conclusion, but it is nonetheless a leap, not supported by facts that differ from case to case.

Click to expand...

Our government has been slowly concentrating political power away from the states into the federal. This is a road to tyranny we've been on over a century. Liberty is on the opposite side of the spectrum from freedom. Every year, there are more and more controls presiding over the faculties of liberty, that can only be described as tyranny.

A theocracy is not a government by theology or by the divine, but a government by doctrine of whoever holds power, and they will only think themselves divine.

God's Fighter said:

Perhaps but I see another debate arising out this particular conversation. As it seems apparent there are some core doctrinal differences that would likely need to be discussed before this current platform could be resolved. Like say, a biblical inerrancy debate. I suppose I am at fault for that, due to my assumption that most of us agree enough on some core beliefs that such things would not get in the way. I would ask to keep it on topic as much as possible and not get too sidetracked by the obvious doctrinal differences.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

As an FYI though, I'm not arguing for inerrancy here. I'm simply trying to discern the source of his claims. In any case, I'll drop the question. Brother Jase, you're welcome to have the last word on this.

JediMobius said:

False.

Click to expand...

As long as anyone in the world can edit any article anywhere on Wikipedia, it will remain unreliabloe, not matter what people with slanted viewpoints "determine" about it's accuracy.

JediMobius said:

Forgive me for extending "innocent until proven guilty" to all of humanity.

Click to expand...

Some people are too obvious for such an extension. Ghengis Khan. Attila the Hun. Hitler. Stalin. Saddam. Ahmadinejad.

JediMobius said:

Our government has been slowly concentrating political power away from the states into the federal. This is a road to tyranny we've been on over a century. Liberty is on the opposite side of thv spectrum from freedom. Every year, there are more and more controls presiding over the faculties of liberty, that can only be described as tyranny.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with you more. And not in the previous 50 years has it been as bad as it has been in the last four.

JediMobius said:

A theocracy is not a government by theology or by the divine, but a government by doctrine of whoever holds power, and they will only think themselves divine.

Click to expand...

That's an opinion, not a definition. Webster's definition, and it is very simple: "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided." That doesn't preclude a democratic government but as I said in my original post, it isn't likely that will be the case, either.

Wikipedia can be a reliable source if one utilizes the citations (if they're provided).

Stew Tradheir said:

You all are utterly lost. Literally, the lost sheep of the House of Israel that Jesus, the King of Israel, said he came for.

Are you not aware that there were 13 tribes in Israel and not just Judah. Are you not aware that the lost tribes (10 tribes of the House of Israel, as opposed to the 2 tribed house of Judah) went into captivity to the Assyrians and history tells us they're gone.

The Assyrians were the Germans, and you Celto Anglo Saxon are the Israelites. Have you ever even wondered the origin of the British Crown, and where their divine right claims come from? Well I'll tell you, they claim to descend from David, and the coronation stone is Jacobs pillar that Jacob saw Angels ascending and descending on. UK - United Kingdom, Isaacs sons - Saxons, British flag - first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. (jahtruth.net)

So yea, theocracies are good. Read Malachi ch 4 if you need a reminder.

Click to expand...

That's a very priggish thing to say, please explain yourself.

Stew Tradheir said:

No, this is a very priggish thing to say. Ask a question.

Click to expand...

Good job. Are you insinuating in your other post that we're either unsaved or not Christian by saying we are "lost"?

Stew Tradheir said:

My use of lost was more a play on words and tying it to the NT reference of the lost sheep of the house of Israel. I'm willing to stay on the topic of the thread which is Gods theocracy, or the Kingdom of God.

Click to expand...

Understood. Please forgive me for saying your post was priggish, your post came across as though you were referring to us as unsaved for our opinions and understanding of theocracies.

Back on topic, I would embrace the sort of theocracy in which God was ruler, but I don't believe such a thing will exist until Christ returns, the dead are resurrected and the New Creation is completed—all of which is our future, blessed hope but is also something we cannot predict. Conversely, a theocracy organized and run by humanity is inherently flawed from the start and only serves as a governmental tool to eradicate opposing or differing religious views.

It's my understanding that the OP was exploring the concept of a theocracy here and now.

file13 said:

Well, we'd first have to ask "what makes something 'evil' to begin with?" As Christians, we hold that something "evil" is something that violates God's law, which itself is a reflection of His character.

Click to expand...

Islam has clearly been in opposition of what Jesus claimed the law was. Wherever Islam has been set up, the non Muslims suffer.

So if God is the measure for something being good or evil and we see that God clearly decreed a theocracy for the Children of Israel in the Torah, then clearly, not all theocracies are evil.

Click to expand...

And a Christian theocracy NOT based on individual political power but on the Gospel, would have the world an almost heavenly place.

Ultimately, I think your right, in that it won't be established until after God torches everyone, save the elect.

Click to expand...

Your god seems like a rather nasty bit of work. I think I'll pass on him, and go seek out the truth Spirit of Love in Christ.

artybloke said:

Your god seems like a rather nasty bit of work. I think I'll pass on him, and go seek out the truth Spirit of Love in Christ.

Click to expand...

Our God is love and known through the truth Jesus Christ.
But Jesus does say He will return to judge the living and the dead and separate some to eternal life and some to eternal death. Is it that you missed this bit and dont actually know Him properly?